Monthly Archives: February 2013

The Washington state Public Safety Committee passed HB 1771 this afternoon, with 9 votes for, 1 against, and one excused.

The intention of the bill is to protect citizens from loss of privacy through warrantless surveillance, limit liability on the state and local government, and create clear standards for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, AKA drones.

Warrants have to be very specific in the information they are trying to obtain, must show probable cause, and don’t allow for the keeping of extraneous information that is coincidentally collected about non-involved persons in the process. Which means that your neighbors should be safe from surveillance, even if the police have a warrant for your backyard. If footage of them happens to be collected in the process, it must be discarded.

If the bill becomes law, therefore, it would be a great victory in protection against unreasonable search and seizure, especially as we head into the new frontier of massive drone production.

“This bill is about freedom.” noted Representative Matt Shea, who co-sponsored the bill and wasn’t alone in his sentiments.

Share this:

The Indiana Senate passed a bill that would block any attempts to detain people on Indiana soil without due process Thursday afternoon.

The Prohibition on Aiding the Enforcement of Unconstitutional Laws Act (SB400) passed 31-17. All but one Senate Democrat reportedly voted against the bill, with six Republicans joining the dissent.

If the bill becomes law, a “state actor may not investigate, prosecute, or detain any person lawfully in Indiana under a state or federal law that the state actor knows or reasonably should know deprives a person of life, liberty, or property without a fair proceeding in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution or the Due Course of Law Clause of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.”

The legislation not only prohibits state cooperation with indefinite detention without due process under the National Defense Authorization Act, it also covers any such attempts under any other act.

An amendment was approved on the Senate floor during the second reading that would make violation of the act a class A misdemeanor.

A person who commits a Class A misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one (1) year; in addition, he may be fined not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Share this:

Today, the Washington State House committee on Government Accountability & Oversight voted unanimously to approve HB1888, the Hemp Freedom Act. The vote was 8-0.

Sponsored by Representative Matt Shea (R), along with Christopher Hurst (D), Cary Condotta (R), Jeff Holy (R), David Taylor (R) and Jason Overstreet (R), the Hemp Freedom Act would “permit the development in Washington of an industrial hemp industry.”

HEMP OVERVIEW AND USE

Industrial hemp is used for a wide variety of purposes including the manufacture of cordage of varying tensile strength, durable clothing and nutritional products. During World War II, the United States military relied heavily on hemp products, which resulted in the famous campaign and government-produced film, “Hemp for Victory!”

Even though soil, climate and agricultural capabilities could make the United States a massive producer of industrial hemp, today no hemp is grown for public sale, use and consumption within the United States. China is the world’s greatest producer and the United States is the #1 importer of hemp and hemp products in the world.

Since the enactment of the unconstitutional federal controlled-substances act in 1970, the Drug Enforcement Agency has prevented the production of hemp within the United States. Many hemp supporters feel that the DEA has been used as an “attack dog” of sorts to prevent competition with major industries where American-grown hemp products would create serious market competition: Cotton, Paper/Lumber, Oil, and others.

WASHINGTON HEMP FREEDOM

HB1888 is set on sound constitutional principles – that the federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers deleted to it, and nothing more.

The bill was sponsored by State Representative Nicholas Schwaderer who worked hard behind the scenes to get a bipartisan group of legislators to cosponsor – 18 republicans and 6 democrats.

After yesterday’s committee hearing on HB522, Montana Tenth Amendment Center coordinator Tim Ravndal expressed his belief that the bill would pass, and the fact that a wide coalition across the political aisle was in support:

“HB 522 FLEW through the House Judiciary Committee Hearing. I was asked at the conclusion of the hearing how it felt to be on the same side with ACLU. “Politics make strange bedfellows” We had no opposition to the bill, and only one question from the committee seeking clarification. This bill is on the freight train heading for the Governor!”

If signed into law, HB522 would make it illegal for Montana to participate in NDAA indefinite detention: “The state of Montana may not provide material support or participate with the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the federal National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, within the boundaries of this state”

Share this:

By a vote of 6-2 the Arizona State House Judiciary Committee approved House Bill 2573 (HB2573), bringing it one step away from a full House vote.

A modified version of the Liberty Preservation Act released by the Tenth Amendment Center, Arizona joins a growing choir of states and localities who’ve decided that waiting for federal politicians to repeal their own power is something they’re not willing to risk.

Tenth Amendment Center member Bryan Berkland said as much in his public testimony in support of the bill:

“It would be nice if the federal government would check their own power, but that’s not happening.” Berkland began his testimony by pointing out the most important issue at hand, the federal government has no legitimate authority to indefinitely detain, that is, arrest without end and without access to courts or lawyers. He said, “When I read the Constitution, I don’t find any authorization for this.”

The bill was sponsored by State Representatives Carl Seel and Brenda Barton along with State Senator Judy Burgess. If signed into law, HB2573 would ban the state from providing “material support” or participating “in any way” with sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the sections which purport to authorize indefinite detention and are in effect today. (read more HERE and HERE).

Share this:

Missouri State Representative Lyle Rowland has introduced a bill that would block implementation of UN Agenda 21 policies in the state and protect private property rights.

HB 42 would amend the Missouri Code concerning state and local administration:

“This bill prohibits the State of Missouri and all political subdivisions from adopting or implementing policy recommendations that infringe or restrict private property rights without due process as may be required by policy recommendations originating in or traceable to Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations, or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that conflicts with the Constitution of the United States or the Missouri Constitution.”

So what is Agenda 21? While billed as a global sustainable development plan, it’s advisable to consider what that means to the UN—and how they plan to achieve it.

Share this:

The Alabama Medical Marijuana Patients Rights Act (HB2), authorizing medical use of marijuana for certain qualifying patients, sponsored by State Representative Patricia Todd (D-Birmingham), has once again been rejected by the Health Committee of the Alabama House of Representatives.

Voting 12-2 against the bill, the Committee was not persuaded by Todd’s assertion that the bill was not an attempt at backdoor drug legalization. “That’s not what we’re talking about,” Todd said.

“This is actually the most effective way that most people who have cancer or other diseases digest marijuana.”

Todd has introduced similar legislation in the past, and she told an Alabama newspaper that she feels like she’s making some progress on the issue.

“We knew that they were going to defeat the bill, but we got two affirmative votes, and I think we raised the possibility that they will look at this closely and that we need to continue to study it,” she said.

Share this:

On Tuesday Feb. 19, at 4pm, the Tennessee Second Amendment Preservation Act had a committee hearing.

Many supporters came to the meeting, almost filling up the room. Some people brought signs, and most wore stickers in support SB250.

The hearing started off with Senator Mae Beavers reading the bill in front of the committee members and audience. This bill is to amend the current Firearms Freedom Act which most on the committee had signed. The Firearms Freedom Act, which composed of SB1610 and HB1796, was signed into law in 2009. The Firearms Freedom Act is different from the Second Amendment Preservation Act by mandating the state of Tennessee to retain the responsibility of intrastate commerce regarding firearms, accessories, and ammo. The Second Amendment Preservation Act would nullify all laws, act, orders from banning, restricting, and straight up infringing on the Second Amendment.

“The general assembly declares that any federal action prohibited by this chapter relating to firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition, whether made in Tennessee or not, is not authorized by the United States constitution and violates the restrictions contained therein and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state; that said federal action shall not be recognized by this state; and that said federal action is rejected by this state and shall be null and void and of no effect in this state.”

SB250 continues:

“Any federal action shall be deemed an intentional violation of state sovereignty and shall be unenforceable within the borders of Tennessee if the federal action does or attempts to: (1) Infringe on, ban, regulate, or restrict state government, local government or civilian ownership, transfer, possession or manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition in this state; (2) Require any state government, local government or civilian owned firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition in this state to be registered or tracked in any manner; or (3) Impose federal taxes, fees or any other charges on any state government, local government or civilian owned firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that are payable to any government entity.”

After Senator Beavers spoke, June Griffen Chairman of the Tennessee Committee for the Bill of Rights, testified that the Bill of Rights, both state and federal, are guarantees for “we the people”. June cited many sections of Tennessee’s Constitution.

Section 26 of the the Tennessee Constitution states, “That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense, but the Legislature shall have the power, by law, to regulate the wearing arms with a view to prevent crime.”

Share this:

The Madison County Commission passed its 2nd Amendment Preservation Resolution when it met for its regular meeting on Tuesday morning, February 19. Introduced by Commissioner Adrian Eddleman, the resolution is based on a model provided by the Tenth Amendment Center. The vote was 18 in favor, 6 votes against, with one commissioner absent.

A significant crowd of supporters showed up to support the passage of the resolution, mostly members of the Tennessee Firearms Association and Tennesseans for Liberty according to Eddleman.

After the passage of the resolution, Commissioner Eddleman stated, “The legislation was public beforehand and Commissioners had obviously already formed strong opinions. I received correspondence from several constituents and it was 100% in favor of the resolution. While none of the public spoke, commissioners obviously knew the reason for the crowds attendance as some constituents spoke favorably about the measure to their commissioners before the meeting.”

Commissioner Doug Stephensen“It is a fundamental right and we don’t need a knee-jerk reaction from the government because of what has happened lately,” commissioner Doug Stephenson said. “It’s worked well for 200 plus years.”

Share this:

The Oklahoma Firearms Freedom Act unanimously passed out of the House Public Safety Committee Wednesday.

HB2021 would exempt firearms manufactured and remaining in the state of Oklahoma from federal law, federal taxation or federal regulation, including registration.

The bill passed 13-0 and will move on to the calendar committee for further consideration. If approved, it will head to the House floor for a vote.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Sean Roberts (R-Hominy), finds its foundation in a proper understanding of the commerce clause.

“Regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

It continues, nullifying the unconstitutional federal expansion of the commerce power by reasserting state control over items manufactured and retained in the state:

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Oklahoma and that remains exclusively within the borders of Oklahoma is not subject to federal law, federal taxation or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the Oklahoma Legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

The Constitution states, “The Congress shall have power… to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes…The Congress shall have Power…to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Robert Natelson notes in The Original Constitution that there are misconceptions of the commerce clause in the Constitution, that the regulation of commerce is not exclusively enumerated to Congress and that commerce did not include everything under the sun. The states still have immense power to regulate commerce within their own state and even with foreign nations.